The opinions written by the court are a legal embarrassment to Wisconsin.
The activist judges have stretched the law to formulate a smoke and mirrors decision that smacks of partisanship reflecting a blindness to the law – Not to justice.
These are the faces of the four Wisconsin Supreme Court Judges that denied collective bargaining rights to workers and families in Wisconsin in an order issued June 14, 2011.
They are pictured above -from left to right
David Prosser current term expires when Waukesha is fully investigated.
Pateince Roggensack Her current term expires July 31, 2013.
Justice Michael J. Gableman His current term expires July 31, 2018.
Annette Kingsland Ziegler Her current term expires July 31, 2017.
Now might be a good time to take another look at the U Tube video that documents the meeting that is in question to remind ourselves how the conduct of the meeting shared little resemblance democracy. The Supreme Court is ruling that this video depicts actions by legislators in which the court chooses not to meddle. So, therefore, they are fair, legal, and in accordance with the State Constitution?
If the legislators in the majority said the open meeting rules were followed, then they must have been. If not, there is no higher power to check or balance what the majority of the legislature says or does.
At least that is what the four activist judges ruled.
The judicial activism and deep division of this court is so blatant and “gargantuan” that is is attracting national attention.
Below is a quote from Rick Unger’s article in Forbe’s Magazine.
“The minority opinion further alleged that the majority was driven by political motives rather than the desire to deliver a fair and judicious opinion.”
“In the world of the law, this is beyond huge. This is gargantuan.”
Unseat Prosser – Investigate Waukesha
The shadow of Prosser (the drop of the title ‘judge’ is intentional) is shown over his long, tedius. and patronizing multi-page legal opinion. Even the Chief Justice points to its failing in shedding any legal fact to the issue. Not to mention that it is written by a man who sits in his position under a cloud of suspicion at his victory in the recent election.
Even though the recount exposed a list of illegal procedures almost as long as his opinion, no investigation has been done.
The GAB launched an investigation of County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus and her suspect methods in response to the national outcry of “foul play” when we learned she stored election tabulation for the county on her personal computer on which she found 1400 votes two days after the election. Since, then the GAB has stepped way, way back. It will not comment or acknowledge any such investigation citing “confidentiality” as a screen. Since, Kloppenburg filed a formal complaint, the GAB claims to be gagged by Wis. Statutes. The simple solution would be to have a legislative committee call a late night meeting without public notification and pass a law to investigate. The Supreme Court would have no problem with that. Then the man who would be the subject of the investigation would be able to write a long-winded opinion absolving him from blame. Do you see what is happening here?
The court has over-played its hand. Prosser is sitting on a bench that is worm rotten. He must be investigated or he must resign.
What little credibility the Wisconsin Supreme Court may have had was lost in the words of their activist opinion striking down the ruling of Judge Sumi.
But it isn’t only my opinion. Just read the comments below Rick Unger’s article in Forbes:
“To me, the most shocking part of the opinion is the majority’s disavowal of the very concept of judicial review of legislative acts, first laid out in the history of the US in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.”
“This court has granted the petition for an original action because one of the courts that we are charged with supervising has usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the legislature. It is important for all courts to remember that Article IV, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides: “The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and assembly.”
Wisconsin elects its judges, and the current majority was elected with massive influxes of corporate cash. Gableman & Ziegler were heavily backed in their elections by smear ads from the corporate-lobbying Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce, and Prosser was just re-elected with $2.7 million in outside spending, WMC being his biggest single backer too (his opponent Kloppenburg scored “only” 1.8 million total. Documentation
The outside-spenders for Kloppenburg warned, “A vote for Prosser is a vote for Walker.” This rush-job ruling gives a pretty broad hint that they may well have been correct.
Justice Abrahamson remembers, though. And if she couldn’t prevent the content and the timing of this decision, she could and did send a message. She has told us that the Court is in serious trouble and that very serious forces are at work.
Recall Supreme Court Justices Now
Start the Recall of Patience D. Roggensack, Annette K. Ziegler, and Michael J. Gableman Recall David T. Prosser next year In order to serve Walker, Justice Patience D. Roggensack, Justice Annette K. Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman, joine…d by Justice David T. Prosser to hastily overturn Judge Sumi’s decision. Following is part of the dissent by SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. as she rips apart the decision of the gang of four . ¶81 In hastily reaching judgment, Justice Patience D. Roggensack, Justice Annette K. Ziegler, and Justice Michael J. Gableman author an order, joined by Justice David T. Prosser, lacking a reasoned, transparent analysis and incorporating numerous errors of law and fact. This kind of order seems to open the court unnecessarily to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority’s ultimate decision. ¶96 The order and Justice Prosser’s concurrence are based on errors of fact and law. They inappropriately use this court’s original jurisdiction, make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties’ arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891. Wisconsin Constitution Article XIII Recall of elective officers. SECTION 12. [As created Nov. 1926 and amended April 1981] The qualified electors of the state, of any congressional, judicial or legislative district or of any county may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective officer after the first year of the term for which the incumbent was elected, by filing a petition with the filing officer with whom the nomination petition to the office in the primary is filed, demanding the recall of the incumbent. Recall Roggensack, Ziegler, and Gableman Now Recall David T. Prosser next year